Jesus vs Religion – Knowing God

April 3, 2013April 1, 2013 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday we pondered the replacement of love with false reverence. Now for another test to know when “the religious” is at work in the church (launching from some thoughts of John Eldredge in Beautiful Outlaw):

2. Knowing about God substitutes for knowing God.

“Therefore, teaching is exalted. Church feels like a seminar—could be intellectual, could be motivational. Good content is what matters. Doctrine is fiercely defended. Members can explain to you theories of the atonement, or seven steps to success, but can’t name one intimate encounter they’ve had with Jesus.” (172)

This is a very real danger for us preachers. Especially those of us who have had the privilege of attending formal theological training in some form. One of two things tends to happen in Bible school, and both are problematic. Either we have a great time of personal growth as we delight in the studies and learning environment—which results in us viewing church as an opportunity to recreate that academic environment. Or we have our faith numbed as we grow sophisticated in our understanding of what true Christianity supposedly is—which also results in us viewing church as an opportunity to recreate that academic environment.

Church is not seminary-lite with courses running one lecture a week over several weeks. Church is a different animal. There should be an educational component, but it should be so much more than that. (Part of the problem may be that Bible college and seminary should be so much more than that too, but over time the ideals of the founders of Bible Institutes and Colleges tend to dull toward secular respectability, intellectual sophistication and spiritual deadness . . . perhaps a subject for another day.)

Let’s be very careful that our own study and personal walk with Christ is genuinely intimate rather than allowing it to reduce to academic study alone. Then let’s make sure our preaching pursues life transformation and personal introduction, rather than settling for information transfer and cultural reinforcement.

3. Power displays are confused for intimacy with Jesus.

Some churches celebrate the miraculous and delight that God is at work in their midst. But chasing the next miracle is not the same thing as chasing Jesus. In Eldredge’s words, “I can give someone a thousand dollars and it doesn’t make them my friend. They can keep coming back to me for more, and it doesn’t make them my friend.” (173)

Even if we have great stories to tell of God’s coming through in our lives and experience, let us not short change our listeners by failing to invite them into the reality of relationship with God Himself. A Christianity that offers only the benefits of Christ without the person of Christ might be no Christianity at all.

Jesus vs Religion – Loving God

April 2, 2013April 1, 2013 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

In his book, Beautiful Outlaw, John Eldredge lists ten tests to know when “the religious” is operating. This week I am walking through them for us to ponder as preachers, and in respect to our preaching. Please see the first post for a caveat regarding concerns with his books.

1. False reverence replaces loving Jesus.

“In fact, loving Jesus is considered optional. I know, it seems to hard to believe. But it’s really quite common. You don’t meet a lot of people, frankly, who are given over to loving Jesus. But they live a clean life, attend church faithfully, and are considered to be ‘good Christians.’” (172)

Is it possible to be a Christian, but to have the “being in love with God” part be an optional extra – extra credit, if you like? I am afraid this is all too common. Jesus could not have been more clear about the greatest commandment. I think John’s gospel also hints a little about the issue of loving God. But we have come to the place where people define being a Christian based primarily on praying a prayer, making a commitment, and assenting to a basic creed.

I am glad he put this one first. It is truly fundamental. If you don’t love Jesus, something is profoundly broken. Paul said so in 1Corinthians 16:22 if anyone does not love Christ, he is accursed. Let’s stop accepting alternative measures of true faith to avoid the central one.

Loving Jesus is not an option for you as a preacher, and it is not an option for those who go by the label Christian. If you don’t love Jesus, don’t preach. If you do love Jesus, then when you preach don’t just prompt a pretense of love by adding certain terminology to the creedal commitments of the church. We don’t need churches full of people who adopt an alteration of their “vocabularius receptus.” We need to help our churches be full of people who are transformed from external religious practice to real love for a Christ they discover to be so captivating and a God whose love is so transformative.

Jesus vs Religion – Introduction

April 1, 2013 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Over the years I have generally enjoyed John Eldredge’s books. Never completely, but always a lot. Never completely because there tends to be some things in each one that I wish he would state differently. Theologically I am not on the same page, and I know that he is strongly critiqued by some. Since this blog isn’t intended to be a place of critique, I won’t go into any detail here, but will offer some interaction with this caveat in place.

The latest one I have read is Beautiful Outlaw. This is a book about Jesus subtitled, Experiencing the Playful, Disruptive, Extravagant Personality of Jesus.

Eldredge’s portrait of Jesus will most certainly help the reader to enjoy Jesus, perhaps for the first time. I am saddened by the thought that some of us claim to have known Jesus for years, but hesitate if we are asked if we like him. We can determine whether we like a person within minutes of meeting them, but apparently we can know Jesus for years and not instinctively know whether we like him?

The majority of the book is given to personality traits of Jesus and is written positively. But nearer the end of the book Eldredge sets his sights on religion as the great blanket that deadens our delight in our Lord. He states:

By the way, this is the bottom line test of anything claiming to be of Jesus: Does it bring life? If it doesn’t, drop it like a rattlesnake. And you will find that the religious never, ever brings life. Ever. That is its greatest exposure. (209)

He points out that Christianity and Christian culture are by no means the same thing. We need to hear this. He points to the development of personal preferences that are then defined as the only right way to do church and to know Jesus. He points out that a lot of Christian culture can get pretty weird, including a language and affected pronunciation that goes with it. But “loving the culture of the church is not anywhere close to the same thing as loving Jesus.” (170) We can’t forget that the Pharisees loved their religious culture, but hated Jesus.

This isn’t just a quaint quirkiness in churchianity. Eldredge suggests that religiousness is a ploy of the enemy. In his words, “a wing nut talking about Jesus does far more damage than fifty atheists.” (171) So true. I’ve met a few.

He goes on to list the bad breath effect of those who claim some intimate connection to Jesus, but whose lives are so unappealing: “’Gifted Preachers’ who are mean to their children. ‘Anointed Prophets’ who cannot sustain ordinary friendship. ‘Servants of the Lord’ who need to be the center of attention.” (171)

Since people loved to be with Jesus, but are often repelled by the culture we’ve created around his name, I think it is worth prayerfully probing this subject over the next few days.

I’d like to take Eldredge’s ten tests of religiosity and walk through them for the rest of this week. How are we doing, as preachers? That is, as those often so visible to both believers and visitors. And what is our preaching doing? Are we pushing people toward Christian culture, or inviting them to know and enjoy a compelling Christ?

Wide View Application 2

March 22, 2013 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Last time I suggested that too narrow a view of a passage can lead to burdensome and non-gospel application. In narratives we need to make sure we are seeing God’s role and the humans as living in response to Him (both in faith and rebellious self-trust). In epistles we need to read the imperatives in light of the doctrinal gospel sections that inevitably have preceded the commands and applications.

Last night I was at a prayer meeting where we sang “There’s a Wideness in God’s Mercy” . . . an old hymn with a few great verses:

There’s a wideness in God’s mercy like the wideness of the sea; there’s a kindness in His justice which is more than liberty.

For the love of God is broader than the measures of man’s mind; and the heart of the Eternal is most wonderfully kind.

But we make His love too narrow by false limits of our own; and we magnify His strictness with a zeal He will not own.

If our love were but more simple we should take Him at His word; and our lives would be illumined by the presence of our Lord.

So to avoid imposing a “strictness” God would not own, we must preach good news and not turn it into burdensome law. Here are a few thoughts to keep stirring our thoughts:

1. In narratives like the gospels, observe the growth in faith among characters as the stories unfold. The same is true in other narrative sections of the Bible. We are not given much concerning most characters, but what we are given enables us to get a sense of their trajectory towards God in faith or away in rebellion. Tracing that broader story can help to make sense of a particular pericope (individual story).

2. Be careful to identify the link between doctrine and application. It is often more of a “this is what a life looks like that is gripped by that truth” rather than “so you must now do this!” Is the application an implication? Is it a natural outworking? Is it an appropriate response? These are all very different than a self-moved obligation.

3. Turning response into responsibility is to turn gospel into legalistic burden. Many really struggle with this, but it is so important. A captured heart that is stirred will flow out in far greater commitment, sacrifice, integrity, holiness, etc., than a person pressured to obey by the apparently self-moved determination of their own will. If the heart is not stirred, then the motivation will still be about love, but a misplaced love that is a weaker motivator. That is, if it isn’t love for Christ that stirs a person, then maybe they will obey commands out of love for self in respect to conformity to community expectations – a love-driven action, but not in response to the greatest love of all.

Three Possibilities Preaching Psalms

March 19, 2013 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

As I am reading through the Bible I am currently in the Psalms – what a great book! Sadly, for some, Psalms seems to be preached only as filler material in the summer holidays. There is so much potential for preaching in the book of Psalms. Let me offer three possibilities opened up by preaching from this book:

1. You can introduce new treasure to people. People tend to be familiar with some Psalms. Probably 23. Perhaps 24, 1, 110, 121, 127, 51, 8, 73, 37, 27. But what about Psalm 36? Or 33? There is a whole host of Psalms that tend to get ignored in the annual audition for three filler sermons. And don’t just stick to the filler sermon approach. Why not preach Psalm 34 at the start of a series on 1Peter? It certainly was in the mind of the apostle as he wrote his epistle. Why not preach Psalm 118 in connection with Easter? It might add a new set of thoughts to the Easter considerations since Jesus would very likely have sung that with his disciples at the last supper.

2. You can connect with a different group of people. It may be a stereotype, but some have suggested that engineers enjoy epistles. They like the truth statements, logical flow, direct discourse. So if that is the case, who might appreciate the Psalms? Artists? Sure, and there are more of them than we tend to realise in every congregation. How about the suffering? Certainly. Psalms connects with different people at different times in the complexities of each personal biography.

3. You can offer a more vulnerable sermon. When David wrestles with spiritual realities, why not be more open that we do too? Personal sin struggles, doubting God’s goodness, tendency to trust in ourselves, feelings of extreme fatigue, etc. We don’t preach to preach ourselves, but we ourselves do preach. The Psalms opens up the possibility of greater vulnerability from the preacher, and hopefully stirs vulnerability in the congregation. The Psalm writers didn’t treat God as delicate or fragile, they blasted their prayers at Him. Perhaps we can stir greater prayer in churches that tend to pray religiously, and Psalms would be a worthwhile workshop for that kind of goal.

Popcorn?

March 12, 2013 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

This week I may be a bit quieter than usual on the site. I am working on notes for the European Leadership Forum that is coming up in May. It is a privilege to be involved in the Bible Teachers Network there and your prayers are appreciated as I finish off the teaching notes for that event. Meanwhile, here’s this week’s Cor Deo post, simply titled Popcorn?

Dangerous Immunization 2

March 8, 2013March 7, 2013 / Peter Mead / 9 Comments

Yesterday we were thinking about the danger of having non-Bible lovers teaching children and youth. But there are other Bible ministry opportunities in the church:

Surely the home Bible study is a safe place for different folks to try their hand at leading? Absolutely, it can be a very safe and loving environment as far as the trainee leader is concerned. People will be reasonably forgiving toward them. But turn it around. What effect will their leadership have on others present? I am not talking about polish and skill . . . this can be learned and people will be patient. I am talking about core motivation for the Bible. Out of the group who meet on that evening each week, don’t invite someone to try leading unless they have an evident personal appetite for the Word. You might have a Bible college trained, capable presenter, experienced school teacher, well dressed and even charismatic person in the group who is showing motivation to lead the group. But if that person lacks an evident hunger for God’s Word, don’t let them near the reins. There may be another person who ticks far fewer boxes, but if they are not an immunizer, they might be the next Bible study leader to train up and launch.

There may be other venues that include “sharing a biblical thought.” Perhaps a prayer gathering or a social event or whatever. Make sure that every potential biblical communicator is a potent biblical communicator. Having a wider group of people speak, even in a “safe” venue, is not worth it. A good shepherd will not let some of the sheep be immunized so as to lose their appetite for healthy grass, no matter how small a group of sheep are involved, or how brief the immunization exposure might be.

Then there is the pulpit ministry of the church. How many Sundays should a church knowingly tolerate pulpit ministry from people without a personal hunger for the Bible and the God of the Bible? How many Sundays in a year is it ok to have dull, unhelpful, weak preaching? I think once a year is too often. For the visitor that comes that week, the effect could be lifelong. Better to have a local with a passion for God and His Word than a visiting “expert” who dulls the hearts of the listeners.

I feel for the churches where there doesn’t seem to be anyone who can teach the children, the youth, the adults, with a delight in God and His Word. But if that is your church, perhaps you are the key player. Invite people to read through the Bible with you, pray for someone to get infected with the real disease. Seek to infect someone and then see them grow into being a biblically infectious Bible study leader/teacher/preacher. And at the same time do whatever you can to never let a non-Bible lover teach the Bible. The cost is too high.

Dangerous Immunization

March 7, 2013 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Something is not always better than nothing. My wife and I went to a local restaurant and she decided to try something different: pheasant. We’ve never had it before. We’ll never choose it again. The one we were served was poor: chewy, funny tasting, and a piece of shot included as a bonus. Others may say how great Pheasant can be, but we tasted enough of the bad version to probably never choose it again.

There is too much Bible immunization going on in churches. That is where the administration of weakened or dead pathogens are introduced to healthy persons so that immunity is developed against lively forms of the same “disease.” Take the life out of the Bible and give it to people, but don’t be surprised when they develop a distaste for the Bible.

Take Sunday School, for instance. Since the church has always had four classes, it must always have four classes, even if that means pressuring people to teach who lack any personal delight in God’s Word. The children taste a “nothing there” version of the Bible that feels like ancient fables with predictable moral lessons from dull non-infectious teachers. Better to have two or even one classes with a good Bible teacher than more classes where any of them are offering an immunizing effect.

Then the children move up to youth ministry. Here’s a safe place for people to “cut their teeth” on Bible teaching in a safe environment. Perhaps, but only let people teach who have a personal appetite for and delight in God’s Word. It is dangerous to open the door to immunizers. The young folks are at a key stage in life. They are preparing for university, for adulthood, for living out their own faith. And if they have been dulled to the Word of God, then the damage done by such bad leadership choices will be impossible to calculate.

I learn a lot by teaching, but I don’t think it is wise to give people the opportunity to teach in order to generate an appetite within them. It may work for them. But the cost for the listeners is too high. Tomorrow we’ll follow this through into the home group and pulpit ministries of the church.

Impossible Application 2

March 6, 2013March 5, 2013 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

So how do we present practical application without promoting an outside-to-in simplistic copyism in the church? Yesterday we started by stating that the human fleshly tendency will be to perform in order to maintain autonomous distance from God. Furthermore we added that practical preaching can give people lists of things to do, but not address the heart issue. Continuing on . . .

3. Heart transformation is not something listeners can self-generate, neither is it something we can force on folks. Actually, if it is about response, then the burden is on us to offer Christ and the gospel so compellingly that perhaps some might respond. This means that we don’t simplify our view of preaching to explanation separate from application, for it is in the explanation that hearts should be stirred for the application.

4. Listeners have a sensitivity to the integration of the preacher. That is, whether the explanation we offer has obviously marked our lives from the inside-out. Listeners don’t just look for conformity to our own lists of practical applications, they sense the importance of heart change in the truths of what we say. If we don’t have a vibrant and real walk with Christ, then the practical application content will be meaningless.

5. Take the opportunity afforded by practical applications to drip-feed a critique of copy-ism and do-ism. Over time, week after week, perhaps people will start to sense the difference between writing a list and trying to live up to it, as opposed to a from-the-heart response to the grace of God in Christ. Grace truly transforms values and therefore behaviour. Part of our task is to make sure we don’t reinforce the post-Genesis 3 notion that informed choices will lead to success in our performance before, but distant from, God.

6. Reinforce that it is possible to perform without being transformed. The Pharisees should helpfully haunt churchy types like us. It is possible to look really good on the outside, but God wants to transform us from the inside. Perhaps we settle too easily for conformity to church social mores, rather than having appetites whetted for the wonder and glorious privilege of knowing God in Christ. If listeners don’t pick up that possibility from the preaching they hear, where will they develop such an appetite?

Impossible Application

March 5, 2013 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

As we preach the Bible we have to make sure we don’t simply offer historical and theological instruction. Part of our responsibility is to present what difference the message should make in a life. We need to give a sense of what this truth looks like dressed up in everyday clothes. But therein lies a challenge.

How do we present practical application without promoting an outside-to-in simplistic copyism in the church? Here are some thoughts:

1. The human fleshly tendency will be to perform in order to maintain autonomous distance from God. I know that we tend to think of fleshliness as rebellion alone, but we need to see how the flesh can also play up to a religious role. The essential impulse remains the same as it did in Genesis 3 – I can be like God. This is why we need to be so careful in our preaching. Simply pounding the pulpit and demanding greater morality does not avoid the problem of rebels becoming religious, but still keeping God at arms length. The older son in Luke 15 matched his brother in viewing the father as employer and purveyor of benefits, and went beyond his brother in resisting the father’s extreme desire for relationship.

2. Practical preaching can give people lists of things to do, but not address the heart issue. Notice that I wrote that it can, not that it must always do that. I think preaching should be practical. But if we think that adding practical suggestions to historical explanation amounts to good expository preaching, then we know neither our Bibles nor our listeners very well. We need more than practical instruction. We need heart transformation. And that requires an awareness of the difference between response and responsibility. Consistently presenting responsibility to people will not auto-generate any sort of responsiveness in people.

I will continue the list tomorrow…